was what i would call your attention to, commissioner tiefer, and the subsequent work we've done, you have comments from this latest evaluation of us, we changed what we did. we stepped up what we did. we got power to couple earlier than anyone thought in the northeast, and we finished the plan. i think that speaks for itself. speemac looking down the road, there's one piece at one time had been considered for the kandahar power initiative, but was automated, no fault of anybody. that was to have a transmission line built in that period of time, the media period of time between the kajaki dam and helmand. the user community which is around the city of kandahar. and my understanding is that a.i.d. would have liked to have

had such transmission in areas as security is so poor in area you want to put on anybody to try to build a transmission line at this time. so that means they're going to have to compete it out in the future, rather they will have to award it out in the future. i'm, this is a practical matter. rtu positions since you're going to be doing the work at the helmand and other transmission line and you're going to be doing the work at the kandahar and of the line, haven't you positioned yourself so that you basically have a lock when if i come to award the transition? >> commissioner tiefer, i think that's a position for usaid but i would say they have competition on the street right now for energy and water. i think they plan to award at least five specified. so i suspect there will be competition speemac thank you mr. guerre. doctors implant has a question

speemac -- doctors that -- that's fundamentally different if you are doing something very, very different from what you were doing in kandahar, correct? you were advising the government. you weren't building -- >> what we had to do was use knowledge of how already built systems work. that's sometimes more difficult to our engineers had to be very creative internet how to use all of these facilities that have been built by a bunch of different donors that were not to the standards that you talk about where they're all the same standard. and our creative engineers did figure out how to do that. frankly, it's easier to design and all yourself and don't have to figure how do you do something that's already in place. >> did you help draft the agreements based on that knowledge? >> would talk about two different things. getting the power down -- >> i'm not asking about -- >> we advise them on how?

we were consultants on the power purchase agreements. we told people how to integrate the transmission lines on moving the power down. as i told you, that's a more difficult project than just designing and building it yourself. >> thanks. >> mr. henke. >> mr. van dyke, your statement mentions very clearly april 2010 your guesthouse in kandahar was described by an explosive device. and deny to be exactly injured and all other expatriates from the area. so expats had to bug out and leave. >> yes. >> can you tell us about the incident? >> what happened is been laden with explosives made it past the personal line of defense and the security that was there. they made it to the gate of the quarters, and at that point they

succeeded in detonating the van. and i haven't shown you the pictures. >> can you show us the picture for the record, please? >> brian, do you have the picture? i don't think you can see from there but that gives you some idea of the explosion. so there were five people in the house at the time, three were injured. to were not. one of them was severely injured and will probably never return to work. so we evacuated them first to the base, the military base, and then by helicopter to kandahar -- stephen, the kabul and then finally for the injured parties out to dubai. >> who was providing security? >> i believe blue hackle. that was not our security by the way. it was a shared compound and i would have to check it was providing it at the time speak of shared by yourself and -- >> other subcontractors. and it was their security contractor, not ours. i would have to double check but i will if you like.

>> mr. mckelvy communicate clear pecking order. use the ex-pat private streak of us have proven to be much more reliable than afghan own private security companies. is that correct? >> yes, that's correct. >> in the picking order where would you put afghan security forces, meaning afghan police and afghan soldiers? where would you put afghan government security? >> i'm not sure that i could categorize them specifically. we just don't know that much about afghan security forces. so internally we are able to see demonstrated results in a private security firms, ex-pat privacy breeder's cup and we have seen a demonstrated track record. >> mr. mouzannar, any use on afghan security forces? >> we believe that obviously at some point it would be a good idea to turn over the security to the afghans, but at the moment i repeat that they are

not ready yet. >> so your view is they are current capability, they are not viable? >> and also come and no recourse is for us to vet afghan elements. >> you can vet your subs but you cannot the afghan government? >> that's correct. >> mr. van dyke? >> we're working through how we will provide security. i can't tell you all the answers right now. >> how do you afghan city forces? >> i think everybody agrees that the minister does not have the level of people to do it right now so the question is how do we get there. >> so three companies here have private security, mr. mccarron, you're different in that you have high choice, by deliberate choice for a reason i would like you to explain, you use afghan security forces and you say we have found that, the a n. s. f. can be effective. why did you choose afghan security, not private security?

>> that is correct. we've had success with using minister of interior, especially over the years. we found of course it's not always easy. we have to maintain liaison with the ministry. and with the particular forces we call it -- they are dedicated to us. so we can establish a report with that team to travel with all of our missions. it has been effective. but i would like to add i think compared to my colleagues here at the table, we are probably in order of magnitude smaller than the projects they are administering. >> but why do you choose, why is it consistent in your view to choose government security oversight? >> i think it is certainly meets with the cited objectives of the afghan government to be responsible for their own

security. it's been developed over the years, and with the relationship with the afghan government and that most of the work we do is through the ministry of finance or the relevant line ministries looking out for public works or whatever. and so we have a reason to change that. -- we have no reason to change that. we don't sit back and let it happen. it does require a lot of work. we have to have our own in house specialty people, and also rely on our close coordination with the united nations department of safety and security in afghanistan and their context to make sure what we've got is an effective resource. >> are you any different threat environment? is what you are working on is a low threat and that makes it different? >> i don't believe so. we are operating throughout afghanistan. we are building roads in kandahar. >> all of your activities with afghan national security force, you found them to be suitable.

if you're they're building a school or building a road to get the afghan government more capability, you find at least logically consistent that you want to use afghan security forces after curtis david capability? >> we to. >> let me make an observation. it seems to me that we're asking companies, organizations to go outside the wire, step outside of our, outside the fence and go into a war zone. we call it a counterinsurgency. we call it a contingency. the bottom line is it's a war zone. so we are asking noncombatants like yourselves and your employees and your subcontractors, step outside and go into this war zone and build something in an environment where someone else wants to blow it up or give you. i think that's about as simply as i can conceive of it. in that environment we are bringing to bear an element of national power in afghanistan,

private industry, private expertise to bring things about that we want to have. in that environment where we are having, i'll be euphemistic to say we having challenges with private security and having challenges with afghan security, would you prefer security to be provided by u.s. or coalition troops? they been referred to before this commission as the gold standard >> we are going to break away from the last few minutes of this meeting as the house begins to gavel into session. they will be debating provisions of the u.s. patriot act. ransmit a sealed nfl received from the white house on february 14, 2011, at 2:35 p.m., and said to contain a message from the president is whereby he submits his budget of the united states government for fiscal year 2012. with best wishes, i am, signed sin sheerl, karen l. haas, clerk

of the house. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will read the message. the clerk: to the congress of the united states, america is emerging from the worst recession in generations and 2010, an economy that has been shrinking began to grow again. after nearly two years of job losses, america's businesses added more than one million jobs. our capital and credit markets are functioning and strong. manufacture something coming back. and after teetering on the brink of liquidation just two years ago, america's auto industry is posing healthy gains and returning money to the taxpayers to help them through a period of term oim. the determination and -- turmoil. the determination and resilience of the american people and the tough choices we made over two years ago helped to pull our economy back from the brink of a second great depression. two years after those dark days, the stock market is booming, corporations are posting recovery, posting record

profits. momentum is building. yet in america we have always had a broader measure of economic health. we believe in a country where everyone who is willing to work for it has the opportunity to get ahead. where the small business person with a dream or entrepreneur with a great new idea has their best chance to make them a reality. where any child can go as far as their talent and tenacity will take them. this is the genius of america. the spirit is what has built its greatest prosperity the world has ever known. i believe we must do what this moment demands and do what we must do to spur job creation and make the united states competitive in the world economy. for as difficult as the times may be, the good news is that we know what the future could look like for the united states. we can see it in the classrooms that are experimenting with groundbreaking reforms and giving children new math and

science skills at an early age. we can see it in the wind farms and advanced battery factories that are opening across america. we can see it in the laboratories and research facilities all over this country that are turning out discoveries and turning them into new startups and new jobs. and when you meet with these children and their teachers, these scientists and technicians and these entrepreneurs and their employees you come away knowing that despite all we have been through these past two years, we will succeed. the idea of america is alive and well, as long as there are people willing to dream, willing to work hard and willing to look past the disagreements of the moment, to focus on the future we share, i have no doubt that this will be remembered as another american century, signed, barack obama, the white house, february 14, 2011. the speaker pro tempore: referred to committee on appropriations and ordered printed. for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan seek recognition?

>> mr. speaker, pursuant to house resolution 79, i call up h.r. 514 and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 514, a bill to extend expiring provisions of the u.s.a. patriot improvement and re-authorization act of 2005 and intelligence reform and terrorism prevention act of 2004. relating to access to business records, individual terrorists as agents of foreign powers and roving wiretaps until december 8, 2011. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 79, the bill is considered read. the bill shall be debated for one hour with 40 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on the judiciary and 20 minutes equally guyed -- divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the permanent select committee on intelligence. the chair recognizes the gentleman from michigan, mr. rogers, to control 10 minutes.

mr. rogers: thank you, mr. speaker. i would now yield two minutes to the distinguished gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. dent. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized for two minutes. mr. dent: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in support of these three provisions of the patriot act. i think it's very important that we extend them for a variety of reasons. the lone wolf provision, roving wiretaps, which have been in place for some time, we're not breaking any new ground here. rovinging wiretaps have been used by local law enforcement for years, in terms of dealing with drug dealers, organized crime, we're simply allowing those roving wiretaps to be extended to those who may be engaged with terrorist activities. again, not new ground. . it allows us to follow the person as opposed to the device. because of the changing technologies, they can use a cell phone and pitch it and pick up another one. rather than running to the court every time, it is easier to get

the warrant for that individual. also, the business records provision is something that is extremely important, something that is often the subject of a great deal of demagogry, but we have seen folks talk about this as a library provision. it should be noted many of the 9/11 terrorists used public library or university library computers to make their plane reservations or confirm those reservations. the patriot act is allow sharing of intelligence and information between local law enforcement as well as our intelligence community. that's the point. we want to take down these terrorists, cells and operations before they become operational. you know, many folks have said that we should not use our military to deal with terrorist threats and should be the function of local law enforcement. many of those same people will deny the very tools of local law enforcement to take down these terrorist cells. that's why it is essential that we take the time today to

re-authorize these three expiring provisions of the patriot act. it is the right thing to do. and one other thing i want to mention, these lone wolves are a threat and continuing to go after the lone wolves even though they may not be part of the terrorist operations, we need to make sure that our intelligence agencies, law enforcement can go after those lone wolves. we have seen lone wolves, even though major hasan was the sole person. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from maryland is recognized for 10 minutes. rupesrupes i yield myself such time as i may consume. mr. ruppersberger: a bill that would authorize three expiring provisions of the patriot act until december of this year.

like the administration, i would like to see a three-year extension of these authorities until 2013, similar to a senate bill 289 currently pending in the senate. this longer term would give our nation's intelligence and law enforcement agencies the predictability and certainty they need to keep our country safe and getting the politics out of intelligence. i believe there's no place for politics when it comes to protecting our country and our varied way of life. it must be saubh u.s.a. first. an extension would keep the debate of the patriot act out of the heart of the election cycle. i believe in -- including a sunprovides the checks and balances necessary to ensure we are doing all we can to protect americans by protecting americans' constitutional rights. there will be people on both sides of this issue. i reserve the balance of my

time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. rogers: i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on h.r. 514. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. rogers: at this time, i would yield two minutes to a distinguished military veteran, the gentleman from illinois. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from illinois is recognized for two minutes. >> i rise in support of h.r. 514 and extension of these provisions. the most important job of the federal government is to protect our country and to protect its people. my most important job in congress is to ensure that i am giving the law enforcement community within the bounds of the constitution the tools that they need to make sure that we stay secure, to make sure we stay protected. that is what i consider the utmost call in members of congress, the utmost call of

members of the military and law enforcement community. you are going to hear throughout this debate and heard from people who used these tools in taking out terrorists and organized crime units. i'm an air force pilot, i have been overseas and know the enemy that we face to bring what we saw on 9/11, to bring that back to the shores of the united states. i also want to say the only thing standing in between another 9/11 and another peaceful country we have been feeling the last 10 years is our law enforcement community and our united states military. that makes it essential to listen to those individuals and understand what we need to ensure we are bringing down terror cells where they exist in the united states and continuing to protect our cells from infiltration overseas. on the tragic day of 9/11, americans were united in their understanding that we must work together as a nation to defeat

those who would destroy our way of life. now it's essential that even though haven't been attacked that we understand that sometimes in the quiet lies the biggest threat. and we never forget that this threat is very, very real. so i ask my colleagues to rise and join me. i ask my colleagues to ask themselves which side do they want to be on. do they want to be on the side that doesn't necessarily understand and recognize that we are going to be continued to be assaulted from a group overseas that wants to destroy our way of life. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. ruppersberger: i recognize the gentlewoman from illinois, ms. schakowsky. the speaker pro tempore: the the gentlewoman from illinois is recognized for three minutes. ms. schakowsky: i thank the gentleman for yielding to me.

i rise in opposition to h.r. 514, which re-authorizes and extends provisions in the patriot act that i strongly disagree with. i oppose the passage of the patriot act in 2001 for the very same reasons that i rise today. as a member of the intelligence committee, as a proud member of the intelligence committee, i am confident that we can protect our citizens and do it without treading on their rights. among the provisions extended in this bill is section 215, which allows the government to gain access to anyone's private confidential records, including their medical, financial, library and book store records without first presenting evidence linking those records to a suspected terrorist or spy. it also fails to allow for court oversight of these secret orders and prohibits the recipient of such orders from challenging the

legality of the order for a year. you know, i think that the challenge here today is how do we balance the security of our country with protecting the rights of ordinary citizens. i know that we can do better than we do in this legislation. and so, i urge each of my colleagues to vote against h.r. 514. instead, i think we should pass legislation that grants the intelligence committee the tools -- intelligence community, the tools that it requires while protecting the rights and liberties of all americans. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. rogers: i would be pleased to recognize the gentleman from from the intelligence committee, mr. westmoreland for two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for two minutes.

mr. westmoreland: i thank the chairman, the gentleman from michigan, for allowing me to speak on the extension of this critical bill to our national security. the tragedy of september 11 casts a bright light on our woefully out of date intelligence laws. while many of our domestic crime-fighting laws have been made to adapt to the ability of social changes and new technology, our laws sat on the shelf getting dust for decades. i rise in support of h.r. 514 which will extend three expiring provisions of the patriot act through december 8, 2011. i know i have heard some complaints about civil liberties, but the provisions in this short-term extension are the same tools that have been used by u.s. officials for investigating child molestors, murderers, drug dealers and other organized crime figures for decades.

all this bill does is extend these same tools to intelligence agencies fighting terrorism. and i strongly urge my colleagues to consider that, that this is a short-term extension to give the fedges committee an opportunity to -- the intelligence committee an opportunity to work on those to get a broad agreement. gives the gentleman from michigan and the gentleman from maryland to work together and for all of us to work in a way that will provide the security that all of us want for this nation and still allow us to have the personal freedoms that we enjoy. so i would invite and encourage all my friends to vote yes for this simple extension until december to give us time to do what this country desperately needs for us to do. with that, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. ruppersberger: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from ohio. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman is recognized. mr. kucinich: it is difficult to debate and two friends who are taking the opposite position. in this case, we have to look very squarely at the literal reading of the constitution, 1st and 4th amendments make it clear that the patriot anth is destructive undermining of constitutional principles. there is extraordinary powers being given by the government and contraconvenience, not just principles that are in the constitution but our own oath to defend the constitution. i want to talk to two of the provisions, two are contained in the patriot act, legislation that i opposed when it first came up, because i believe it was overinfringement on basic civil liberties. first one, section 206, john doe wiretap allows the f.b.i. to obtain an order from the fisa, foreign intelligence surveillance court to wiretap a target without having to specify the target or the device.

and i challenged the constitutionality because this provision undermines the 4th amendment which requires warrants to describe the place to be searched and the person or things to be seized. this provision of the patriot act requires neither the target or device be identified. section 215 of the patriot act, known as the business records provision allows the f.b.i. to order any person or business to turn over any tangible thing as long as it is specified for an authorized investigation. orders executed under section 215 constitute a serious challenge to the 4th and 1st amendment rights by allowing the government to demand access to records often associated with the exercise of first amendment rights such as library or medical records. third provision, the lone wolf surveillance provision, it the

surveillance provision, it authorizes the government to conduct investigations of non-u.s. individuals not connected with foreign power or terrorist groups or allows the government to circumvent the standards that are required to obtain warrants. i ask to put extraneous materials into the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. . mr. rogers: may i inquire as to how much time is remaining? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan has 4 1/2 minutes and the gentleman from maryland has five minutes. mr. rogers: i reserve my time to close. the gentleman from maryland. mr. ruppersberger: it is important we hear all points of view from my colleagues when it comes to reauthorization of the patriot act provision. the three-year extension outlined in s. 289 will take politics out of this debate.

i'm pleased this bill contains a sunset provision. it is important they have sunset dates so congress can evaluate the if he cantiveness of these tools. rigorous oversight makes sure privacy rights of citizens are protected. i will ensure that the committee conducts oversight of these provisions. i hope that subsequent provisions of the patriot act that congress continues to use sunstate dates that will keep congress in the business of oversight of these important authorities. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. jch michigan is recognized. mr. rogers: i reesht the way the ranking member has approached this issue. there are people who have strong, passionate opinions on this. i'm shocked and a bit amazed at

the misinformation that is in and about the patriot act. we should stop investigating drug dealers and molestors, and kidnappers. if you believe today going in and trying to get someone's business records to prove they were at a place with a subpoena from a grand jury is a bad idea, then, we should stop doing

will you not be able to go to a court and get a roving wiretap or a court order, by the way, to get records that will help in an ongoing terrorism investigation. it really is mind boggling. let me give you a great example. the time square bomber, if we would have known early in that particular arrangement, they could have gob and figured out, listen, we need a court order, we go to the fisa courts two, courts here, a criminal court and a fisa court, we go to the fisa court because we don't know how big this is, we don't know who's involved, we want to arrest everybody that's involved. so let's go to the judge and prove to the judge that if we can figure out that he bought materials from a hardware store to build a bomb, that we might be able to prevent this thing in the future. so they go, they get a court order. this is hypothetical. they get a court order, which is a pretty high standard in any investigation.

or the other option is, the bomb goes off, it kills hundreds if not thousands of people and that very same f.b.i. agent takes it with a criminal warrant and gets the very same information after the bomb has gone off. that's what we're talking about. that's the difference. this notion that somehow you don't have to go to a court to get this -- to get an order is wrong. trust me. you're not going to be able to go through somebody's underwear drawer because you want to. it's not going to happen. if you believe in the process that we have in our criminal courts, to have to go and get an order by a third party adjudicator, then you should also believe that this is a really good idea, to be able to do it in these broad, hard-to-do -- or excuse me, investigations into terrorism and spying. it's difficult. remember the russian spy ring that was just broken up recently

. they had a fisa, a court order warrant for a very long time. because they needed to figure out everything that was going on before they brought this thing to a head. the same with a terrorism investigation. think about how global it is now. they plan the attacks in afghanistan to attack new york. and it went through pakistan and other places and saudi arabia and they had multiple states involved when they brought this plot together. it's big. it's complicated. to take away at the end of this month our ability to get a roving wiretap that, by the way, on the very next day after you stop our ability to go to a fisa court to get one, you can still get one in a criminal case against an organized crime or a drug dealer here in the united states. why? why would we do that to ourselves, mr. speaker? it make noes sense. and the work that goes into putting these things together for the brief, to go to the

court, is significant. and i will tell you right now there are very brave americans who are working cases right now, hoping to get their brief done so they can walk into a judge and get an order that might pertain to business records or it might be a roving wiretap to keep america stafe -- safe. if it expires they won't be able to do it. there is no differences -- difference. as a matter of fact, the standard in the fisa court is higher. mr. speaker, i would strongly urge this body's support of what we know is working and has kept america safe since its inception and i would yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: thank you. the gentleman's time has expired.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for 20 minutes. mr. smith: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. smith: mr. speaker, since its enactment in 2001, the patriot act has been the object of so maun false allegations and exaggerations that the myths have overshadowed the truth. it's time to dispel the myths once and for all. let's begin with the myth that national security officials do not need these provisions to protect us from terrorist attacks. this is demonstrably untrue. numerous terrorist attempts in the last 10 years have been thwarted thanks to the intelligence gathering tools provided in the patriot act and other national security laws. fand congress fails to extend these provisions, set to expire on february 28, if will be on our shoulders if the need to

stop the next attack is not collected. opponents claim that the expiring provisions of the patriot act violate the fourth amendment to the constitution. this too is false. each of the provisions at issue amends the foreign intelligence surveillance act or fisa. enacted in 1978, fisa sets forth specific intelligence gathering procedures that do comply with constitutional protections and have been consistently upheld by the courts. that's also -- let's also dispel the myth that these provisions grant broad sweeping, unchecked authority for the government to collection information on unsuspecting americans. this is untrue. these types of provisions have been used by domestic law enforcement agencies for years to apprehend typical criminals. roving wiretaps are nothing new. domestic law enforcement agencies have had roving authority for criminal investigations since 1986.

and section 215, business records have more strict requirements than the grand jury subpoenas used in criminal investigations. this makes no sense to let law enforcement officials use a tool to investigate a drug dealer but then deny that same authority to intelligence officials investigating terrorists. and contrary to claims by critics, there is oversight of these provisions. both section 206 roving wiretaps and section 215 business records request must be approved by a fisa judge. though section 206 roving wiretaps and section 215 business records are also subject to rigorous minimization procedures. these procedures also approved by a fisa judge ensure that only information that pertains to the investigation is actually collected. finally, both section 206 roving wiretaps and section 215 business records prohibit the government from gathering intelligence on a u.s. citizen

or legal resident who are exercising their first amendment rights. the third provision set to expire is the so-called lone wolf definition. as originally enacted, fisa authorized intelligence gathering only on foreign governments, terrorist groups or their agencies -- agents. fisa did not allow the government to collect intelligence against individual terrorists. the lone wolf provision amended the definition of agent of a foreign power to close this gap. an increasing number of terrorist attacks on the u.s. were being carried out by self-radicalized jihadists who adopt an agenda as equally hateful and destructive as any terrorist group. the lone wolf definition simply brings our national security laws into the 21st century, to allow our intelligence officials to respond to the modern day terrorist threat. the lone wolf authority cannot be used against a u.s. citizen. this temporary extension ensures

that there are no gaps in our intelligence collection. without an extension of these authorities, we will forfeit our ability to prevent terrorist attacks. a temporary extension of these provisions is the only way to provide house members the time to study the law, hold hearings, consider amendments and conduct markups. we need to approve this temporary extension today or we will make it harder to prevent terrorist attacks. mr. speaker, i'll reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. conyers: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. conyers: well, ladies and gentlemen, here we go again. last tuesday, on february 8, when this measure came up, it was defeated. it was a bipartisan vote, there

was fair discussion, 26 members on the other side joined with us to make sure that this measure was adequately examined for the flaws. it's not that the patriot act isn't important or needed, it's just that it's flawed. and the most flawed provision is the one i want to comment on briefly, of the three provisions, and that is the so-called lone wolf provision. someone operating on his own and not particularly attached to anyone. this provision allows our full national security surveillance powers which were designed to be used against enemy governments,

to be used against a single individual who is unaffiliated with any foreign power or terrorist group. now, it is widely known that this provision has never been used. it hasn't been used because there are no terrorists, it hasn't been used because it doesn't have to be used. the department of justice, by its own admission, has other powers to go after these individuals. and that's why it hasn't been used. and because we got a closed rule from the rules committee, we weren't able to work out an agreement to take it out. and so therefore i come before you today to urge that we dnt

accept this measure -- do not accept this measure, it is way too broad, and under the statutory definition, virtually any evildoer can be declared a lone wolf. so, ladies and gentlemen, let's be tough on terrorists, but let's describe this in a way that will not be used in a way that will create fears that if we drop the lone wolf provision the world may come to an end. i urge that this one provision is sufficient reason for us not to agree to the measure before us today. and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. smith: mr. speaker, i yield five minutes to the gentleman

from wisconsin, mr. sensenbrenner, who the chairman of the crimes -- crime and terrorism subcommittee of the judiciary committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from wisconsin voiced for five minutes. mr. sensenbrenner: mr. speaker, i thank the judiciary chairman for yielding. last week 122 democrats rejected legislation to temporarily extend the three expiring patriot act provisions, including 36 who supported a one-year extension last year. the house then adopted a rule to bring the bill back to the floor today than the vast majority of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle opposed that, too. these votes are nothing but the minority party playing politics with national security and their arguments ring hollow. the democrats' one-year extension last february successfully achieved their goal of delaying patriot re-authorization until after the midterm elections. but it left very little time for the new congress to complete a re-authorization bill before the february 28 sunset.

my colleagues on the other side of the aisle now profess concerns with the expiring provisions. if they were so concerned about the law, they could have easily brought a re-authorization bill to the floor last congress, making changes to these provisions. but they did not. they also take issue with the process used to achieve this much-needed extension, criticizing the absence of hearings or a markup. but they gloss over the fact that their one-year extension was brought straight to the floor with no hearing, no markup and no opportunity to offer amendments. the same circumstances that a year ago they now claim to dislike. since this law was enacted, these provisions have been scrutinized to the fullest extent of the law and have either been unchallenged or found constitutional. the lone wolf definition has never been challenged. section 206, roving wiretaps,

have never been challenged. but members should know that in 1992 the ninth circuit court of appeals, and that's the ninth circuit, the most liberal in the country, upheld criminal roving wiretap authority under the fourth amendments of the constitution. section 215's business records were challenged. but after congress made changes to that provision in the 2006 re-authorization, which i sponsored, the lawsuit was withdrawn. these three provisions about have stopped countless potential attacks and play a critical role in helping ensure law enforcement officials have the tools they need to keep our country and its people safe. opponents of these provisions argue that we can simply use criminal laws to gather the information we need. but this argument ignores the most important distinction between criminal investigations and intelligence gathering. criminal investigations only occur after the fact, after a

murder has been committed or a home has been burglarized. the entire purpose of intelligence gathering is prevention. to stop the terrorist attack before it happens. we cannot rely on criminal tools to identify and apprehend those who are plotting to attack us. . as the democrats choose to play politics, we are under a time crutch. four legislative days including today, remain for the house to extend these provisions before our nation is placed at a greater security risk. these are needed provisions to keep america safe and i urge the house to approve this bill today and urge the other body to act quickly to re-authorize these provisions. now is the time to put politics aside and do what's right for america's national security. i urge passage of the bill. and i yield back the balance of

my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back and the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: i yield myself such time as i may consume and i would like to remind mr. sensenbrenner that we are not playing politics and merely accusing us of that and not having hearings doesn't help the debate much. now, on september 22, 2009, the subcommittee on the constitution of the judiciary committee held hearings. and on october 29, 2009, the full committee held hearings and reported out a bill, i would say to my friend from wisconsin. and on november 4 and 5 of 2009,

i say to the distinguished gentleman, we had a two-day mark up in judiciary, with record votes on 10 amendments offered by members of both parties and we reported out a compromised measure by voice vote. and so to say that we didn't hold hearings when we were in control is inaccurate. and i'm not made happy by this misrepresentation. now to say that this is a minority party tactic misses the point again. the gentleman was awake and on the floor last tuesday, 26 of your members voted with us. that's not partisan politics. and so i'm sorry -- i am very

sorry that this discussion is getting off with so much misinformation, but i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. smith: i yield five minutes to the gentleman from california, mr. lungren, senior member of the judiciary committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for five minutes. mr. lungren: i thank the gentleman for yielding. and mr. speaker, the 9/11 commission report observed, the choice between security and liberty is a false choice as nothing is more likely to endanger america's liberty than the success of a terrorist attack at home. in this case, freedom presupposes security. that's what we are talking about here. the distinguished former chairman of the judiciary committee basically is called into question the lone wolf

terrorist provision. he said it's never been used. i heard this same argument on the floor last year before we had the domestic lone wolf. i heard the same argument on this floor last year before we saw the consequence of a lone wolf action in times square. i heard the same argument last year before we saw the lone wolf action of the christmas day bomber. i heard the same arguments two years ago before we heard that. the fact of the matter is, the greater concern that we have today as expressed just this last week by the secretary of homeland security that the level of the threat is high today as it has ever been since 9/11 and when asked about it, she explained as did the co-chairs of the 9/11 commission that it

is the less consequential attacks done by those who are not directly associated with al qaeda or affiliated organizations, i.e. lone wolves, that cause us to be of greater concern today. c.i.a. director of this administration has warned that it's the lone wolf strategy that we have pay attention to as the main threat to this country. and the gentleman from michigan would have us wait until that threat is carried out before we then say, well, maybe now we have a reason to have the lone wolf provision. professor robert turner has written of how the absence of authority to conduct surveillance of a lone wolf terrorist undermine the f.b.i.'s effort to gain access to the content of ma suey's computer and impeded a critical investigation that in the

absence of fisa might well have prevented the attacks on september 11, 2001. the former chairman of the committee has said this allows us to use this provision against anybody. not true. it has to be someone who is not a citizen or permanent resident of the united states, who is engaged in international terrorism, but may not be linked to a foreign power or terrorist organization. today in the age of the internet, when someone is incited or inspired by one of these individuals from a foreign country and then carries out a terrorist act, that is the definition of a lone wolf. and the gentleman from michigan would have us shack will ourselves not to be able to deal with this as was explained by the gentleman from michigan, mr. rogers, a former agent of the f.b.i., these are anti-terrorism cases, not criminal

investigations. and what we're trying to do is not collect the body parts after a successful attack and then try and find those who caused it and try and bring them to justice. no, we are trying to stop the attack in the first place, protect americans. that's why you have the fisa courts and some of these different definitions. what we have done within the ambit of those definitions is try and protect the civil liberties of americans while at the same time allowing us to take reasonable, responsible and yes, pro-active actions against those who would murder americans. there is a difference between a criminal investigation and a counterterrorism effort. it is the difference between trying to prosecute someone for a crime that has already been committed as opposed to trying to prevent the death and destruction that would be rained

upon the united states by these terrorists. i am the author of the sunset provision. i brought this because i thought it required us to look at these three provisions because, yes, they were the most controversial. i'm convinced after looking at it in these years, that these provisions have not been abused. but at the same time, i will be working with the gentleman from wisconsin and others to have rapid, intensive, active oversight of these provisions to ensure that we do not have depp practice vacation of civil liberties as we carry out these necessary functions. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. conyers: i yield myself 15 seconds, to remind my dear friend from california that the provisions in lone wolf apply -- do not apply to americans.

hasan was an american and we have not yet used -- i yield myself 15 seconds more -- and we have not yet used the terrorists' provision of lone wolf. and i yield to the distinguished the gentleman from ohio, mr. kucinich, 45 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio is recognized for 45 seconds. mr. kucinich: i would hope my good friend from california in his very passionate defense of the patriot act did not mean to imply that the distinguished mr. conyers in some way would subborn terrorism because he chooses to point out that the standards required to obtain electronic surveillance orders

standards required to obtain electronic surveillance orders. mr. lungren: i wouldn't question the gentleman from michigan but i would question his conclusions and impact of his decision. mr. kucinich: it's fair to debate this. we have to be cautious about how far we draw conclusions about motivations of each other and taking the positions that we do. i yield back. mr. conyers: i yield to the gentleman from north carolina walter jones, two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from north carolina is recognized for two minutes mr. jones: i have come down and listened and have a few minutes to share my thoughts on this because i think the majority of people in my district are god-fearing, constitutional-loving americans like anybody else's district and people across this nation. i regret that i was too weak to vote my conscience we had the

patriot act. i did not feel good but as an american who loves the constitution and believes in the civil liberties that are guaranteed that this country for tooms has sold itself to the federal government to take care of it. and i make reference to a book that was written by judge andrew napolitano. well known constitutional lawyer who is on fox news from time to time. the title of the book is called "nation of sheep." he wrote this book in 2007, years after we passed the patriot act. and he goes through every aspect of the patriot act that he believes sincerely is a serious violation of the civil liberties of the american people. and i would like to share just a couple of his comments. he said that the greatest dangers to our freedoms lie hidden in a government that has seized them from us and that vigilance and natural law can

save us from the power-hungry bureaucrats. he stated in the book the inalienable right comes from god and element of humanity that can't be given up or legislated away. let us not legislate away our liberty. and my colleagues who voted against this will vote no on this re-authorization because it should go to a hearing and should be very careful and i hope and pray that maybe we will be able to defeat this tonight. i know the odds are against that. but mr. chairman, i will ask god to continue to bless america and bless the constitution and as napolitano says, let's not be a nation of sheep. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. smith: i continue to reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. conyers: i would now like to recognize a senior member of the committee, bobby scott, former chairman of the subcommittee on crime and judiciary as much time as he may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia i recognized for as much time as he may consume. mr. scott: i rise in opposition to h.r. 514, which would extend for one year sweeping governmental intrusions into our lives and privacy that were authorized by the u.s.a. patriot act. without meaningful oversight and committee deliberations, demonstrating these extraordinary powers if needed, we should not extend these provisions for one full year or any period of time for that matter and i therefore oppose the bill. i'm opposed because i do not accept the argument that in order to be safe we necessarily have to sacrifice our rights and freedoms. i agree with benjamin franklin who stated during the formation

of our nation that those who give up freedom deserves nor liberty or safety. one of the provisions that the bill re-authorizes is section 2 215 that gives the government the power to invade our records such as books we read at the library by alleging that they are relevant to a criminal investigation and without having to show it is in connection with any threats specific terrorist activities. no requirement to show probable cause or reasonable suspicion or being related to a specific act of terrorism and therefore is no meaningful standard to judge whether or not the material is, in fact, necessary. another provision of h.r. 514, section 206 of the patriot act which is known as the roving john doe wiretap provision which allows the government to wiretap a phone conversation without showing which phone will be tapped or who will be using it

and without requiring a court order for a specific roving tap. the third provision of 6001 of the intelligence reform and terrorism prevention act of 2004, the lone wolf provision gives the government the authority to spy on individuals in the united states who are not u.s. citizens or permanent resident aliens even though they aren't agents of foreign governments or terrorist organization. unfortunately that means if those targeted have any interaction with and american citizen that citizen is spied upon as well. we have allowed spying of noncitizens in the united states where there is probable cause only if they are agents of foreign governments or members of a terrorist organization. there is an extension of that power which could envelope anybody simply as a result of the occasion of sbrl acting with the targeted person even while in the united states.

they have no requirement to show probable cause or even any wrongdoing which is generally called upon when such powers over individuals is extended. it's important to note that in cases of emergencies, warrants can be obtained after the fact. law enforcement officials can perform wiretaps and searches in emergency situations and then get a warrant. so, mr. speaker, absent oversight protections and even when after the fact warrants are available, all three of these provisions should be allowed to expire unless we demonstrate in oversight hearings and committee deliberations that these powers are necessary and narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling national security interest. these freedoms and provisions -- and protections these provisions take away are the

core of our values and liberties and these protections should not be legislated away without vigorous oversight to protect against abuse. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. smith: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from california, mr. lungren. mr. lungren: what i'd like to say, mr. speaker, with respect to roving wiretaps it's only available after the government is able to prove to the court that the target may engage in countersurveillance activity such as rapidly changing the cell phone number. it doesn't allow the government to make a general, boilerplate application. it requires them if they can't identify the individual, the very specific individual to describe to give some particularity in the request to identify that person as much as they possibly can. it is a -- it is also required

that we put into law that once they have actually utilized this roving wiretap on different instruments of communication they have to report to the court within 10 days as to what took place. we have refined this as much as absolutely possible. what we're trying to do is keep up with technology. we know that some of these targets will buy 100 cell phones and use them for a single conversation and throw the -- throw that cell phone away. you can't just think that's going to happen, you have to prove to the satisfaction of the court that is a reason to believe that they're going to take these kinds of efforts to try and stop surveillance in these regards. and again, this is before the fisa court and only deals with these kinds of cases. this is not regular criminal cases. so the gentleman's concerns having been raised, have been raised before and we met those concerns in our prior treatment of this law. so it is a careful balance that

we have created here. to take into consideration the new techniques utilized by those who would threaten us and at the same time try and provide for a third party, a court, a federal court made of federal judges, to look at this, we have to report before and we would have to -- that is our agency activist, would have to report afterwards within 10 days. i believe that's about as much protection as you can give and still be effective in this environment. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. conyers: i'm pleased now to recognize the distinguished member of to this body, dana rohrabacher of california for two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for two minutes. mr. rohrabacher: thank you. mr. speaker, when congress passed the patriot act in 2001,

in the aftermath of 9/11, we mandated sunsets on the provisions that dramatically expanded federal investigative and enforcement powers, especially those that could infringe on the freedom of american citizens. sunsets meant that congress would have to specifically extend the time on those powers or they would expire. five years ago, the last time around, the bush administration attempted to make permanent these crisis-related expansions of authority by removing the sunsets. let me congratulate my friend from california who spent so much time trying to make sure the sunsets ran and dan we know you worked hard to make sure shows sunsets are put in. this power grab on the part of the bush administration was

thwarted by good members like dan lungren who are with us today in this debate. today, a few controversial sections still are scheduled to periodically sunset. the congressional action to extend these provision deserves hearings, adequate debate, the right to amend, and thus ensure accountability and transparency on such a significant issue. we have not met this standard this time around. the republican leadership has committed to a more acceptable process by december when the extension of this bill comes up for a vote again. i hope i will be able to vote yes at that time. until then, it is no. let us note about the accusations of politics in this. i believe the american people have a legitimate fear of

out-of-control government. they have a legitimate fear of out-of-control spending and out-of-control bureaucracy. and yes, they have a legitimate fear of out-of-control prosecutors and out-of-control spy networks. let's make sure we stand for free tom here. that's not political. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from texas. mr. smith: i yield one minute to the gentleman from wisconsin. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. sensenbrenner: when the patriot act was drafted in 2001, i insisted on the sunset. and the then-republican controlled house prevailed against the then-democrat-controlled senate. i resisted repeal of the sunset prematurely and in 2005, the judiciary committee when i was chairman had hearings on each

of the 17 provisions. there was no controversy about 14 of those provisions. even the aclu testified in maff that those provisions had not been abused. so 14 of the provisions were made permanent. this law has not trampled on anybody's civil rights. where there was a constitutional problem with section 215, it was fixed in the re-authorization and i'm getting a little bit irritated at the scare mongering that's been going on about this law when no provision has been held unconstitutional by a court. the speaker: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. conyers: i'm pleased now to recognize jerry nadler, former chair of the constitutional subcommittee, for as much time as he -- as he may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. nadler: i rise to oppose the extension of these provisions. when the house has doning in to

consider them or consider possible reforms or even to hold a hearing or markup. the three sections scheduled to sunset are troubling and i hope we have the opportunity to review them carefully before they come before the house again. section 215 authorizes the government to obtain any tangible thing such as library, business or medical records if there are reasonable grounds to believe that they are relevant to a foreign intelligence or international terrorism investigation. before the enact of of section 215, the goth had to show specific facts giving reason that the person who whom the records obtained was -- pertained was a terrorist. it allows the government to into the records of someone even if there's no reason to believe that that person has anything to do with terrorism or potential terrorism. this poses a threat to

individual rights in the most sensitive areas of our lives with little restraint on the government. section 206 provides for the roving wiretap orders, supposedly to catch up with technology but these orders iden fi neither the person to be tapped, nor the facility to be tapped. without -- this is for all practical purposes a general grant of authority to wiretap anyone, anywhere, that the government wants. they should either have to identify the person or because of modern technology the facility. there are almost no limits to this authority and no requirement that the government name a specific target. this is akin, very similar to the british yen writs of assistance that engendered the colonial outrage that led to the american revolution. section 6001 the so-called lone wolf provision, permits secret

intelligence surveillance of people who are concedingly not affiliated with a foreign government or organization. it provides the government with theable to use secret courts and other investigative tools that are unaccept nble a domestic criminal investigation as if we were dealing with a foreign government or entity. according to government testimony this provision has never been used because you can use the normal criminal provisions if you suspect someone of planning mayhem or terrorism or anything else. surveillance of an individual is not working with a foreign government or organization is not what we normally consider as foreign intelligence. there may be good reasons for the government to keep tabs on such people but that's no reason to suspend our laws under the pretext that it's a foreign intelligence operation. while some argue that these remain necessary tools in the fight against terrorism, i believe we should not miss the opportunity to review the patriot act in its entirety, including the 14 sections that were sunsetted that many of us

opposed making permanent at the time, thought they should continue to be sunsetted so they could be reviewed from time to time. we should examine the act, see where it's successful whether it's failed, whether it goes too far and where it poses threats to our liberty. that's the purpose of the sunsets and to extend it without that review undermines the purpose. there's another law that's allied to this that also deserves careful review. the national securities letters act. i have introduced legislation which would better protect civil liberties while ensuring that n.s.l.'s remain a useful tool in security investigation. i hope we can work to strike that balance in a responsible manner but the record is too great for the congress to ignore. i was encurveballed to see some of my republican colleagues cross the aisle to vote no on the extension. it shows a healthy skeptism of unrestrained government power to spy on people in the united

states. that is the essence of opposition to unchecked government power that value should not be a partisan one. i hope to work with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to restore our traditional respect for the right of people to be secure from unchecked government intrusion. that's why we have the fourth amendment. i hope we will be able after this vote to examine carefully the way these provisions have been used or abused and to look at ways to reform the law in light of experience. that was the purpose of sunsets and i hope we can take advantage of that opportunity. i thank you and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from texas. mr. smith: we're prepared to close on this side. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. conyers: how much time remains, mr. speaker? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan has one minute remain, the gentleman from texas has four minutes remaining. mr. conyers: i'd like to divide our remaining time amongst two

colleagues and -- does my friend from texas have in his heart any generosity to yield a couple of minutes? mr. smith: i'd like to respond to my friend from michigan and say, i believe i can find the time if he can find a way to give us a copy of the motion to recommit. . mr. conyers: that's up to the leader, not up to me. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan is recognized. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. smith: in anticipation of a good faith effort to consider the proposal by the gentleman from michigan, i ask unanimous consent to yield him two minutes of our time. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: i thank the gentleman, lamar smith, chairman, for his generosity.

i will now divide two minutes, plus one minute, and that allows me to give one minute to hank johnson, one minute to sheila jackson lee, and one minute to dennis kucinich. a minute and a -- a minute and a half to ms. jackson lee. and a minute and a half to kucinich. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from texas is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. ms. jackson lee: i'd like to extend my appreciation to the gentleman from texas for the time. all three issues have been laid out to the three elements.

i'd simply like to pose a question to my colleagues, we know we have a problem with the three remaining, intrusive, and i believe unconstitutional provisions. we know ranking member conyers has explained we were not absent, we did not have the lights out under his jurisdiction, we actually pursued this. we couldn't get an agreement. we couldn't move towards the floor. so the question now is, we realize a roving wire tack is intrusive and the lone wolf provides a problem. so the question is, how do we fix it for the american public? how do we ensure the constitution is intact? let me be very clear, it is well-documented human intelligence is the best. why? because most of us were surprised, when i say that in the intelligence community, at least have not articulated what is going on in the mideast in egypt and yemen and otherwise. we were surprised. did any of that help us? this is an intrusion on the american public. we're not in any way nonpatriots. we are patriots. we believe in the founding

fathers and understand they came together to give you, the americans, their right to their freedom. we ask for the fourth amendment to be sack row sanction and say you're not subject to unreasonable search and seizure. that is my question to our colleagues. when will you engage in our hearings and the ability to mark something up to address these infringements. how quickly will you move? december of 2011 is too long. let us work together to uphold the constitution. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. conyers: i yield the remaining time to the gentleman from ohio, mr. kucinich. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. mr. kucinich: i want to thank the ranking member and thank the gentleman from texas for the amicable and manner of comity you've extended here. it's very much appreciated. i also want to say, as i listen

to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle speak in defense of this, i am aware you love this country, that you want america to be safe, you want america to continue to be free, and great thing about this congress is that we have different ways of viewing how we can go about that. but i have great respect for each of the speakers who have come forward. i want to say that since congress first passed the patriot act in 2001, we've been continually challenged on it this question of our constitutional duties to ask as a co-equal branch of government and it's my belief we've failed to conduct checks and balances over government power. i want to associate myself with the remarks of the the gentleman from california, mr. rohrabacher, in that regard and we failed to conduct robust oversight and in connection with the gentleman from wisconsin. this has been something that --

some of the remarks you've made about what we needed to do, you know, i think you've made some good points in that. and i also think that we have a responsibility here to protect the american people from overt infringements on their most basic civil liberties, and i see this continuing extension to being a challenge to that. so i request unanimous consent to include the rest of my remarks in the record of this debate. the speaker pro tempore: so ordered. without objection. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. smith: mr. speaker, i yield myself the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. smith: mr. speaker, we must act now to keep these national security laws in place. time is running out. we have only a few days left to do what we need to do to keep america safe. these are commonsense provisions that prevent terrorist attacks, protect the american people, and preserve civil liberties. i urge my colleagues to vote

yes on this commonsense stens and i'll yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. pursuant to house resolution -- mr. lungren: mr. speaker? the speaker pro tempore: will the gentleman state his inquiry? pursuant to house resolution 79, the previous question is ordered on the bill. the question is on engrossment and third reading of the bill. mr. lungren: i have a motion to recommit at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will suspend for one moment. the question is on engrossment and third reading of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. third reading. the clerk: a bill to extend expiring provisions of u.s.a. patriot improvement and

authorization act of 2005, an intelligence reform and terrorism prevention act of 2004 relating to excess business records, individual terrorists as agents of foreign powers and roving wiretaps until december 8, 2011. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? mr. lungren: i have a motion to recommit. the speaker pro tempore: is the gentleman opposed to the bill? >> in its current form. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report. >> i reserve a point of order. the speaker pro tempore: the point of order is reserved. the clerk: mr. thompson moves to recommit the bill h.r. 514 on the committee to the judiciary with instructions to report the same back to the house forthwith with the following amendment, at the end of section 1, add the following new subsection. c, compliance with constitution. one, investigations must comply with constitution. each investigation of the united states citizen conducted under an extended authority

shall be conducted in a manner that complies with the constitution of the united states. including the first through 10th amendments to the constitution of the united states, commonly known as the bill of rights. two, expedited review of violations and any civil proceeding before a federal court that involves an alleged violation of paragraph 1, such court shall expedite such proceeding. three, extended authority defined in this subsection, the term extended authority means any authority available under a, an amendment to section 105-c-2, 501 or 502 of the foreign intelligence surveillance act of 1978, 50 united states code 1805, c-2, 1861, 1862, that took effect after october 25, 2001, where be it section 101-b-1-c of such act as amended by section 60-01-a of the intelligence

reform and terrorism prevention act, law 105.451, 118 statute 3742. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from california is recognized for five minutes in support of his motion. >> thank you, mr. speaker. the patriot act gave law enforcement some necessary tools to keep up with technological advances being used by those who would do harm to our country. it did not abolish our responsibility to make sure that the constitutional rilets of law-abiding citizens are protected. this motion to recommit will guarantee that the powers of the patriot act being voted on today are not used to violate the constitutional rights and freedoms of the american citizens. more specifically, this motion does two important things, first, it states a fundamental truth that even in secret national security investigations, the patriot act

investigations of u.s. citizens may not circumvent any provision of the united states constitution. the patriot act powers are used in secret, as a result, when ordinary american citizens are ordered to turn over information to the government under these expansive powers, they are prohibited from discussing their case in public. the risk of government overreach is at its greatest in matters such as these. the second section states if a u.s. citizen argues to a court government spying violated their constitution rights, that the citizens case must be expedited. the fisa laws require that when the government seeks a court order to conduct surveillance of a american citizen, the government's request must be expedited i did the court. this provision is a basic promise of fair and equal treatment and the government should not have greater rights than the people. we took an oath of office to

protect and defend the constitution of the united states against all enemies foreign and domestic. our obligations to that oath and the american people we represent are put to their greatest tests when we consider matters of national security and government powers such as the ones before us today. i urge all members who support the freedoms guaranteed by our constitution to vote yes on this motion to recommit and i yield 2 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from north carolina, mr. price. mr. price: i thank the gentleman for yielding. this motion is as straightforward as they come. the patriot act should be enforced in matter that doesn't violate americans' constitutional rights and those who believe their constitutional rights have been violated should receive fair and equitable treatment by the courts. i can't imagine any of my colleagues from either party voting against this bedroom principal -- principle, that the executive branch should respect the constitution when

it comes to investigating american citizens. after all, each of us took an oath of office last month to support and defense the constitution of the united states against all enemies foreign and domestic. we all take that oath seriously. indeed, we opened this session of the congress by reading through the u.s. constitution on this floor, an exercise in which i was pleased to participate. it's in that same spirit that we offer this motion. for while we have differing views on how best to protect our national security, while upholding our cherished liberties, and in this case whether the enhanced authorities in this underlying bill are still needed nearly a decade after the september 11 attacks, we should all be able to agree that the united states constitution is our last line of defense in cases where an american civil liberties may be threatened. so by assuring the exercise of these powers doesn't violate our basic constitutional rights, this motion would

provide a safety net to protect american civil liberties in the absence of a more comprehensive review of the patriot act. the second part of this motion states simply americans who believe their constitutional rights may have been violated by the government should receive the same expedited consideration by the courts that the government already receives. how can anyone argue with that? why shouldn't our courts be equally responsive to the concerns of american citizens as they are to the concerns of the government? especially when an individual believes his constitutional rights have been violated. the government of the people, by the people, for the people has the utmost responsibility to protect the constitutional rights of every individual, especially when it comes to matters of national security. so this motion to recommit, mr. speaker, is simple, straightforward, and consistent with the bedrock principle of our republic. i urge my colleagues to vote yes regardless of their views on the underlying bill, to vote

yes as an affirmation of the support of this body for our constitution. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california has 15 minutes. mr. thompson: again, i urge all my colleagues to vote yes on this motion to recommit to protect our constitution, the civil rights and the civil liberties of the american people while at the same time making sure we're safe from those who may wish to do harm to us. i yield back purchase the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the rise?man from wisconsin rise? mr. sensenbrenner: i rise to oppose the motion to recommit. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman withdraw his reservation. mr. sensenbrenner: i withdraw my reservation. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. sensenbrenner: a few moments ago the chairman of the judiciary committee, the gentleman from texas, yielded the democrats two additional minutes and asked for a copy of the motion to recommit so we could look at it. the gentleman extended that

offer in good faith. we received a copy of this motion to recommit at the time the clerk started reading it. and our offer of good faith was responded to with an attempted surprise. now, the bill before us, the underlying bill, h.r. 514 is very simple. all it does is extend the authorizations that are about ready to expire until december 8. . it doesn't add to the patriot act or the terrorism prevention act, it does not subtract from it. it gives the judiciary committee time to do the oversight, exactly the same thing i did when i was chairman the last time the sunset expired. but there's something else in here that i think is very important. and that is, there is a provision that would cause the courts to second-guess

themselves every time a national security actions can them for a business record order. rather than expediting the request to seek information on terrorists, this motion to recommit tells the court to expedite civil lawsuits against the united states government. to get money damages under a provision that is in the patriot act. and that tips it all on its head. if the civil rights are violated, there is a provision in the patriot act that allows people to file a lawsuit and to do all of the discovery that needs to be done and bring the case to trial. they don't need to be expedited. what needs to be expedited is going after the terrorists with business records. now, there's a provision in the motion to recommit that says

that the constitution has to be followed. we don't need to put things in the statute back that says the constitution needs to be followed. that's the supreme law of the land. and this is completely redundant. it is unnecessary. and frankly, the constitution has been followed in the patriot act because there has been no finding of unconstitutionality of any of the 17 provisions. where there was a preliminary finding in the business record section, we amended the law and the plaintiffs dropped their suit. we fixed the problem to the approval of the plaintiffs who filed this suit. so we ought to get on with this. we're going to have these hearings. we're going to have the time to have these hearings. all the gentlemen on the other side of the aisle have my commitment now as they did nine years ago and as they did five and six years ago that the

hearings will be thorough, they will be comprehensive, and they will allow everybody to speak their piece. vote against this motion to recommit, pass this bill and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. without objection, the question is on the motion to ere-commit. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the noes have it. >> mr. speaker, i ask for a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman ask for the yeas and nays? >> i request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having risen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members ll record their votes by electronic device. pursuant to clause 8 and clause

9 of rule 20 this 15-minute vote on the motion to recommit will be followed by five-minute votes on the passage of the bill, if ordered, and approval of the journal. this will be a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 186, and the nays are 234. the motion is not adopted.

the question is on passage of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion, the ayes have it. >> mr. speaker, on that i ask for a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. those favoring a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for litical or mmercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 275, the nays are 144. the bill is passed. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, the unfinished business is the question on agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal on which the yeas and nays were ordered. the question on agreeing to the speaker's approval of e journal. members will record their votes by electronic device this will be a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly pribited by the

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote --

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 352, the nays are 59, with three answering present. the journal stands approved.

the speaker pro tempore: the chair will now entertain one-minutes. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania rise?

>> to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. thompson: thank you, mr. speaker. the 112th congress has a man cate from the people to focus on job creation and economic growth. career and technical education should be at the forefront of these efforts. expanding our nation's career and technical education is one of the most important ways to produce an educated and skilled work force, ensure that students are career and college-ready and make sure they have the skills to remain competitive in a changing work force. this year, i was named to the education conversation. our awareness is to increase awareness of the importance of technical education and support technical-related small business job growth. the program exist nervous

congressional district and i urge my colleagues to join the career and con -- the career and technical education caucus. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlelady from texas rise? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlelady is recognized. ms. johnson: i've come to the house this evening to talk about the deficit, but not our budgetary deficit, which is a concern to many of us, but the deficit of vision i see reflected in the c.r. we will be voting on late they are week. by that, i mean we have a c.r. before us this week that will do gai daniel to our economic competitiveness while having negligible impact on the nation's budgetary situation. it is clear that without a

robust innovative economy it will be next to impossible to truly reduce our national budgetary deficit yet this c.r. cuts some of the very investments needed to address the crisis in competitiveness in our country that we are confronting now. for some time, important leaders in our business and academic community have warned us about this crisis. in 2005, the national academy chaired by former lockheed moffer tin c.e.o. norm augustine released a report, "rising above the gathering storm" this report showed that without a focus -- warned that without a focused effort by the federal government, america's future was bleak. it recommended increased efforts in science, technology, engineering and math. we have failed to heed this vision. i yield back.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota rise? >> to address the house for one minute. the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the house will be in order. would the ladies and gentlemen please clear the well, clear the aisles. the gentleman from minnesota is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i rise to congratulation minnesota's fire officer of the year, dale speken of hopkins. known for his can-do attitude, loyalty and fairness he's long had the respect of his colleagues for his passion of teaching others about fire prevention and going above the call of duty to help others. he comes from a long line of firefighters and in 1981 joined the family business. working hard and rising through the ranks, he became hopkins' fire chief in 2005. mr. paulsen: being the dedicated community servant he

is, he serves as the emergency manager and fire marshal for the city of hopkins. i want to congratulate dale on being named fire officer of the year. thank you for your many years of tireless service and unwavering commitment to our community. i yield back. . the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? >> to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> i was pleased to hear my colleague talk about firemen a moment ago. however, the continuing resolution that is now before this house would lay off 1,333 firemen across this nation. it would also lay off 2,410 firefighters across this nation. we're now into the sixth week of the republican control of this house and yet we have no jobs.

mr. garamendi: we have a jobs layoff bill. the continuing resolution will lay off tens of thousands of men and women across this nation from firefighters to cops to construction workers. 76 projects that are going to be built in infrastructure will be canceled. we're looking at 200,000 young children that will not be in the head start program, which means their teachers and others running those programs will be laid off. this is the most anti-jobs bill i could possibly imagine and here we are in the six weeks, no jobs, just job layoffs. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona rise? >> i ask permission to address the house and unanimous consent to address the house for 60 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from arizona, without objection, is recognized for one minute.

>> mr. speaker, today is one of those special days and for many of us we think of it as valentine's day but for arizona this is our 99th birthday. today we begin our 100th year. and the wonderful folks in arizona, which is a stunningly beautiful state for those of us who have not had a chance to visit us from the grand canyon down to the mountains or the desert plateaus to the grasslands down south, come join us for our 100th anniversary celebration. all through this year. all up and down the state there's going to be special activities, special dinners, special commemorations for the baby state, the valentine state that is arizona begins its 100th anniversary today. mr. schweikert. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from tennessee rise? >> to address the house for one minute.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is given one minute to address the house. >> last night the grammys took place. i'm proud one of our memphis constituents kurt walem received a grammy and i'm also glad al bell received a award of stacks record. there was a contribute to solomon burke, one of the great song singers of all time. mr. cohen: the tribute was done by mick jagger. no one can do anything quite like mick jagger but it was fitting he did solomon burke because in the 1960's he was the first african-american to do bob dylan and he was there, too. and eminem got the best rap song. it was a good spirited night at the grammys of biracial cultural cooperation, understanding and love. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. smith: request permission to address the house for one

minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> the e.p.a. is now going after the farms and ranches that feed the american people. they say ranching and farming causes dust. no kidding. out with the dust and in with the more regulations and fines. dust has been around since man first tilled the soil with primitive plows and herded sheep and cattle in the wide open spaces. mr. poe: the e.p.a. doesn't like the dirt roads used by pickups and tractors that crisscross the cattle ranches and farms in texas and in the heartland of america. so the environmental police agency is going to regulate the dust created by farming and ranching by imposing expensive fines on the breadbasket of america. the dust police rule would make it more expensive to feed america. first, it was punishing the domestic energy industry, now they're going after the agriculture industry. does the e.p.a. wish we import all our food like we do crude

oil? this sounds a little bit un-american to me. maybe the e.p.a. needs to just hit the road. and that's just the way it is. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota rise? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from minnesota is recognized. mr. ellison: i rise to congratulate the people of egypt who for 18 days took the streets of tahrir square to use people hauer and stand up and liberate themselves. for 18 days they called on things like governance and to have a hand in their own destiny and democracy. how many rights, bread, dignity, things like that. i was so proud of watching the team of -- people of tahrir square stand up and claim their dignity. i'm so proud to say so many

americans stood shoulder to shoulder with them. i also want to add, mr. speaker, it demonstrated the people of egypt reject the philosophy of al qaeda, reject the philosophy of extremism and use nonviolent tactics tested the world over to bring forth democracy. this is a wonderful testament to people who want freedom, justice and equality to stand together peacefully and it was so good, mr. speaker, to see people of multiple faiths, muslims, christians, other people, jews, standing together to say we want a new day in egypt. so, mr. speaker, i yield back and again, my hearty congratulations to the people of egypt. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back his time. are there any other requests for one-minutes? for what purpose does the gentlelady from texas rise? without objection, the gentlelady is given one minute.

ms. jackson lee: as i was traveling, mr. speaker, to washington, i had the opportunity to read the local newspaper. it's a good time for us to reconnect with our community, those that we have not been able to see, to hear their stories. and i was impacted by a story of two students at the university of texas. from different walks of life who had had a passion for football in one instance and a passion for basketball in another instance. and unfortunately, as they were aspiring to their dream, both of them found that they had a congenital or a serious heart defect. young men, one who had come out of the heart of acres home, a historically african-american community. whom he loved and chose to stay close to home by going to u.t.

austin to play basketball what a devastating blow to find out he couldn't play when we got there. what about the young man, huge in size lost his life on the football field, the story is in this month when we commemorate american history month, one was a caucasian and one was an african-american. it just shows in this nation how we can work together, come together, these young men in a sense have overcome their challenges and they represent american heroes. i pay tribute to these two athletes at the university of texas. i thank them for their leadership. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: again, are there further one-minute requests? lay of about the house the following personal requests. the clerk: leaves of absence requested for mr. burton of indiana for came, mr. culberson

of texas for today, mr. danny davis of illinois for today, and mr. young of florida for today. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the requests are granted. the speaker's announced policy of january 5, 2011, the gentleman from missouri, mr. akin, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader. under the speaker's announced policy of january 5, 2011, the gentlewoman from the virgin islands, mrs. christensen, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader. mrs. christensen: i'm pleased to lead this special order for

this hour on behalf of the congressional black caucus and have some of my distinguished colleagues join me. but as we begin this special order to call attention to the travesty the republican leadership is proposing and the cuts that they will be trying to enact for the balance of this year, i want to say something to begin to put these cuts into a particular perspective. i'm sure that everyone is aware that today is vietnamen fine's day, a day -- is valentine's day, a day in which we supposedly celebrate love. as the republican leadership begins the onslaught on some very important programs i want to share with all of us something dr. cornell west has been reminding us as of late. and that is that justice is what love looks like in the public arena. justice is what love looks like in the public arena. so on this day when we show those close to us we love them, we should also be showing the american people our commitment

to justice. mr. speaker, the cuts being proposed with the continuing resolution are anything but just. with that i'd like to yield first to our distinguished assistant minority leader, mr. clyburn, the gentleman from south carolina, who has been a leader for his state, for the congress, and for our country, particularly a leader of high moral who leads this country in making sure that we stay true to the values that this country was founded on and continue to operate in that vein. i yield such time as he might consume to mr. clyburn. speaker clyburn: i thank the gentlelady for yielding me this time and thank her for her tremendous leadership on this and many other areas that come

before this congress. i want to get a few moments to talk about an issue that's very, very important to a significant number of citizens in our great country. the warden school of business recently held a conference named in honor of whitney young , a leader and friend in the struggle for social justice, equality, and civil rights. whitney young is probably known best for growing and transforming the urban league from a sleepy little organization into one of the country's biggest and most aggressive crusaders for social justice. what he is less known for is for his call, for a domestic marshall plan, a program to

eradicate poverty and provisions in the united states similar to the marshall plan that was introduced to reconstruct europe in world war ii. i'd like to use that call for a domestic marshall plan as a jumping off point for my remarks this evening. some of whitney young's ideas were incorporated into president lyndon johnson's war on poverty. over 40 years ago. yet discouraged, is still with us. before the war on poverty and the great society, we had the new deal. all of these investments in america helped to move us forward as a nation, but some communities have been left behind each time. and we've begun to call them persistent poverty communities. places that have had more than

20% of their population living beneath the poverty level for more than 30 years. approximate 58% of all counties in america qualify as persistent poverty counties under this definition. these counties are diverse and spread across the country. including appalachia communities in kentucky and west virginia, native american communities in south dakota and alaska, latino communities in arizona and new mexico. african-american communities in mississippi and south carolina. and urban communities in philadelphia, new york, baltimore, and st. louis. .

democrats represent 149 of these counties with a total population of 8.7 million. the republicans represent 311 of these counties with a total population of 8.3 million. with a total population of 5.3 million, 4 of them, are split between democrats and republicans. a total of 43 democrats and 84 republicans represent at least in part or one of these counties. 35 of the 50 states have at least one persistent poverty county. 15 of south carolina's 46 counties meet this ignoble distinction. and similarly, in the sixth congressional district, that i

proudly represent. this is not a red state of blue state issue. that's why in the map beside me, the persistent poverty communities are colored in purple because poverty knows no political affiliation. poverty has never been limited to race, region, or creed. for many years, communities along the i-95 corridor in south carolina were passed over for economic development. federal funds found their way to south carolina but mysteriously did not find their way into the sixth congressional district. the i-95 corridor is plagued with health disparities. the sixth district has the dubious distinction of leading the state in incidents of stroke, heart disease, and diabetes.

we lead the state in adult and juvenile diabetes. -- juvenile diabetes-related amputations. it's home to the highest rate of prostate cancer deaths among black males in the south. scientists tell me that many of these health problems are directly related to water quality. in some of these places in my district, the water is not fit for human consumption. one particular instance in which my office was involved, the health department would not allow a water hookup to a home because of the contamination. yet, the people still drink the water. because they have no choice. two years ago, i authored a

provision in the rural development section of the recovery act we call the 10--20-30 formula. it stipulated that at least 10% of the funds be targeted to counties where at least a 20% poverty rate has persisted for -- persisted for the past 30 years. the formula is working. marion county, south carolina, received a $3 million loan and a $4.7 million grant to build 71 miles of water lines and three water prosessers in orange county benefited from this formula, including a $5.6 million grant to bring potable water to the communities. citizens in these counties will soon be enjoying their first clean glass of watter from the faucet, free from contaminants

and pollutants, thanks to this formula. in the coming days and weeks, i will personally reach out to all 127 members who represent persistent poverty levels -- poverty counties in hopes of bringing together a bipartisan task force to ensure that these areas are not overlooked as we emerge from the recession. hopefully, this task force will work to build on the success of the 10-20-30 formula in the rural development program by, tending it to all federal departments with grant making authority going forward. i thank my friend from the virgin islands for allowing me to speak about this important issue today and i yield back my time to her. mr. --

mrs. christensen: thank you, mr. speaker clyburn. we thank you for developing that formula that has begun to help communities that have been long distressed with poverty levels and we look forward to the work of your task force. obviously this is not a democrat issue or a republican issue. it's an american issue. and we look forward to supporting that task force and the work you will be doing. mr. clyburn: thank you so much. mrs. christensen: mr. speaker, at this time, i'd like to yield six minutes to the gentleman from virginia, mr. scott, who leads the congressional black caucus budget and has led it for all the years i have been here and i must say that in all of the budgets that he has helped us prepare and present to this body, there have been -- they have been thoughtful, they have provided funding to the important areas that our communities and some of the communities that mr. clyburn

needed but still has reduced the deficit in every instance. so i yield you six minutes. mr. scott: i thank the gentlelady for yielding. if we're going to be able to address the important matters that our assistant leader has suggested, it's going to depend on our ability to get the budget under control. we talk about the budget, we need to put the budget in perspective. i was first elected in 1992 and in 1993, we considered a budget that put an end to fiscal recklessness. we passed a budget that by the end of the eight years of the clinton administration had not only eliminated the deficit but created enough surplus to have paid off the entire national debt held by the public two years ago. that would mean we would owe no money to japan no money to china, no money to saudi arabia. it also created a record number of jobs and record economic activity, as noted by the

record increase in the dow jones industrial average. so we had a good budget. we had fiscal responsibility. unfortunately in 2001 that came to an end when we reverted to fiscal irresponsibility. under the bush administration, we passed two tax cuts without paying for them, a a prescription drug benefit without paying for it, fought two wars in the middle of cutting taxes, a $700 billion bailout, all of which put us in the economic ditch. now in order to get these large deficits we now have under control, we have to make some tough choices. unfortunately, last year, we started off in the wrong direction. we considered a huge tax cut bill last year that went in the wrong direction at a total two-year cost of $800 billion, and to put that in perspective, $800 billion is more than we spent in the tarp program, about the same as the stimulus,

about the same as what the health care bill spends in 10 years that tax cut bill sent in two. in case people don't really appreciate how big a bill that was, we checked with the national conference of state legislatures and ascertained that the total yen fund budget, adding up 50 state the cren fund budget of 50 states, was $650 billion. we, in one vote, cut taxes by $00 billion. and before that bill was passed, we asked, how are you going to pay for it? one of the ways that we jeopardized social security in the bill. cutting the payroll tax so money coming into social security will be -- will have to be subsidized by the yen fund. that puts the social security program in competition with everything else in the budget. we put social security in yep arty. we also had tax cuts for dead multimillionaires.

i say dead multimillionaires because everybody expected us to have an exemption of $3.5 million, $7 million per couple, where you pay no taxes and begin paying taxes after that. we increased that exemption so the amount you can get without paying any estate tax to $5 million that additional -- and reduced the rate that additional assistance to dead multimillionaires cost $24 billion. again, how are we going to pay for it. you can look at the continuing resolution in next year's budget a budget that the republicans have already attacked for not cutting enough, and look what it does to the safety net. liheap, the low income heating and energy assistance program for those that can't pay their energy bills and risk freezing to death, we cut that by half a billion dollars to help fund the multimillionaires' tax cut. women, infants, and children, the w.i.c. program, so babies

can be born healthy and tart out on the right track, we caught that. job training for those who lost their jobs an never return, trying to get a job, we cut that program. we're cutting programs to fund that partially -- partially fund that tax cut. opportunities, head start, we only address the needs in head start for half the eligible children. we're going to cut head start and deprive those -- millions of children of that important opportunity. starting off on the right track. we found that head start will increase graduation rates, redeuce delinquency, reduce need for welfare, save more money that it costs. we're cutting that program. programs that encourage young people to go to college. cutting those programs. assistance to historically black colleges and universities and hispanic-serving

constitutions, cut those. those dealing with first generation funding. fund for improving post-secondary education, cut. investments in america's future, nasa, nearble err naughtics and space administration. national science foundation, advanced research project. all cut. these are investments in our future. national infrastructure innovation fund and rescinding billions in high speed rail. other countries are investing in high speed rail. we're cutting high speed rail. we should be more responsible when it comes to balancing the budget. we can do it. but you can't do it by beginning the discussion with an $800 billion tax cut without telling people how you're going to pay for it. cutting critical safety nets and programs, initiation -- initiatives to give opportunities for our youth and initiatives that will invest in our future, these are the things that are being cut. to fund that tax cut bill from last year you cannot

disassociate ourselves from the connection -- cuts that we're making today from the tax cut we passed before. people were saying, well, they don't know, we can't afford. we could have afforded, had we not passed that tax cut. we need to rescind what we did last year so we do not have to make these draconian cut this is year. we should have been honest with the people last year. i don't think the people want cuts in social security, the safety net and investments in our future. we can to better. that's why we're going to be fighting against these draconian cuts that are so important to so many people and make hour we go off and continue on the right track as we did in 1993 where we passed the responsible budget, adressed the needs of the people, create jobs, economic activity and we were on course to paying off the entire national debt. i yield back to the gentlelady from the virgin islands. mrs. christensen: thank you, mr. speaker. i remember when the tax cuts

were being debated and you led us because we knew that those tax cuts would be coming to be paid for by cuts to the programs that our communities need most. and that the american people want. the pew foundation did a poll that showed that people don't want cuts in those programs. and it was interesting, paul krugman in the "new york times" today made a god point when he suggest wed call the bill, because it doesn't have one of those nice names usually attached to republican bills when they're doing something that would hurt the republic, we suggested we call it the ruin the future bill. thank you for your leadership on the budget. at this time, i would like to yield five minutes to our leader, the chair of the congressional black caucus, mr.

cleaver of missouri. >> thank you, congresswoman. i think that what congressman scott just said has to be echoed and i -- as is often said on the floor of this august chamber, is that i would like to associate myself with the comments of the previous speaker. . congresswoman donna christensen led the comments on this vital issue that we will not be silent about. mr. speaker, in my real life as an ordained united methodist pastor, i say to our congregation and congregations

where i speak that if you want to know what a person is really like, if you want to know who a person really is, look through their checkbook. the checkbook will reveal quite clearly what a person believes in. the same thing is true of a corporation and a nation. and the budget of the united states is a bold statement about who we are as a nation. it says clearly what we believe in and the things we don't believe in. it is a statement that paints a picture of the united states of america. mr. speaker, the picture that is being painted now is a picture that could be used on the chiller channel. it is a picture of a nation that would prefer to move

toward deficit and debt reduction by unduly placing pain on the poor or most appropriately and significantly on the men and women of this country who are now pushed aside. normally when we talk about the poor, in people's mind, they see minorities and people who are lazy and shiftless and don't want to work. we are experiencing the greatest economic crisis since october 29 -- october 1929, and the people who we are looking at as being available to be

discarded are police officers and teachers and state employees and municipal workers who have been laid off. every state in the union is having financial problems. every state in the union is laying off employees, and in my hometown, kansas city, missouri, we have a $60 million shortfall. the state government has a $200 million shortfall. and so stateworkers -- state workers are being laid off. what we are saying now is people who are already experiencing pain should get ready to experience some additional pain. and i have heard over and over and over again, well, everybody must share in the pain. and the question that i have asked that nobody has answered, i asked this in our committee last week, why? why should everybody end up suffering? because everybody didn't

contribute to this problem, number one, and on top of that, the individuals who were hurt as a result of this recession, we're asking to receive some additional pain, and that is simply not the way i think we want to project ourselves to ourselves and let alone the international community. here's, as congressman scott mentioned, we had a tax cut and made some major decisions before we went home for christmas. and nobody stood on the floor and repeatedly asked a question how are we going to pay for it? well, now we're going to pay for it by equally, as we like to say, trying to place the pain on everyone. we're not talking about getting rid of freddie mac and fannie mae. and the amazing thing is that the people, wall street, who

caused much of the problems, are now being rewarded for causing the problem. we're going to say, ok, we're going to privatize fannie mae and freddie mac. we're going to do all kinds of things that would accommodate the wall street barons who have caused the crisis. and the poorest people in this country are going to end up suffering even more so. we even had to fight to continue unemployment benefits. we had a battle on this floor to continue the unemployment benefits for people who through no fault of their own lost their jobs, police officers, firefighters. and then we come out with this budget. this budget that we are about to debate is a nervous breakdown on paper. it is not something that we can be proud of as people of the united states because it shows that we don't think in terms of

trying to minimize the pain on the least of these. now, to be sure, the united states faces a painful and profound problem with our deficit and our debt. it has to be dealt with. i ask this in committee last week. i'm on the financal services committee. i asked this question last week. are we serious about cutting the debt when we say that we're not going to talk about the entitlements? we're not going to talk about social security, we're not going to talk about medicare or medicaid, and we certainly can't do anything with the annual debt service which is a part of the budget that we can't make decisions on, we have to pay it. and so if we are not seriously trying to reduce the deficit by dealing with the entitlements, then what we're saying is we're going to play with the american

public, tell them that we're trying to be serious about the debt when we know we're not. this is not going to do any kind of substantial reduction in our deficit over the long term. we've got to seriously deal with this problem and we're not doing it. we absolutely are not dealing with it. nobody wants to talk about the social security issue because they're thinking about re-election. not because it shouldn't be dealt with, but they're thinking re-election. and there's criticism, well, the president should have led the discussion on reducing or changing the retirement age on social security to a higher number or somehow creating a new system whereby we have a means test where individuals making $500,000 a year simply can't also draw their social security. we're not even talking about

that. and there's nobody on this hill who can stand up and say that we can address this problem seriously without dealing with the entitlements. and so i am sorry we're going to hurt so many people in the process of just kind of tinkering around the edges of what is a very serious problem. my final comment, congresswoman christensen, is that there were a lot of people who ran for office and said, you know, we're going to deal with this deficit. but even they are not talking about the only way in which we can change this problem that we're having. every economist will tell you that that's the only way we're going to deal with the deficit. there's not a single economist who says we're credible that can deal with this in any other way. and yet we're not dealing with it and it's really a great

tragedy. i do think, as i conclude my comments, ms. dress chen send, that -- ms. christensen, that the whole issue of what we're doing is so painful that even ben bernanke is saying, yes, we have to make cuts, but he's also saying you've got to be careful. look, the united states is the only entity putting money into the economy in any serious way right now. and if we withdraw it, there could be economic consequences of withdrawing the kind of money that we're talking about withdrawing. some of us are going to challenge it at every opportunity because it is the wrong thing to do. i yield back the balance of my time. mrs. christensen: thank you, chairman cleaver, and we're certainly fortunate to have you lead the congressional black caucus at this time. and i think we need to -- need

a passionate leader. in my church yesterday, my minister spoke of our need of christians but this would apply to any faith, we must be on the side of the disposed, the helpless and the margalized. and the cuts the republican majority plans would clearly hurt the least of these and i am definitely not on their side. i want to yield at this time three minutes to the the gentlewoman from texas, congresswoman eddie bernice johnson. ms. johnson: thank you very much, congresswoman christensen. the national science foundation was created in 1950. the defense advance research agency and nasa were created in 1958 and the department of energy was established in 1977. some of the technologies which originated from these federal investments include the laser,

internet, fiber-optics, and nuclear power. companies which sprang forth from these efforts include companies like google, s.a.s., cisco systems, and sun microsystems. these companies alone employ 130,000 people. 130,000 jobs which were created from relatively modest federal investment, and there are hundreds of companies which have their beginnings in federal research grants. the equation is clear, federal investments and research and development lead to new technologies and products which create jobs. and on the other side of the equation, focus investment and education produce the highly skilled work force which ensures these high-tech jobs stay in america. at a science and technology committee last session, tom donahue of the united states chamber of commerce had this to

say, research and development is the very lifeblood of our knowledge economy. that just about sums it up. in addition to investments in r&d that also help increase the participation of minorities in the r&d enterprises, through the efforts of many in congress, including those speaking tonight, we've made great progress in expanding the pool of talent that this country can draw on to address the competitive challenge we are facing. however, the c.r. before us this week would take us back and undo much of the good work that's been done to date. let me just quote a few negative impacts of this proposed c.r. the c.r. would severely reduce by 78% funding for hispanic service and colleges and completely eliminate federal support for several of the programs for minority serving colleges, including travel colleges and institutions, and

that serves significant numbers of black and asian students. the key education department for historically black colleges, universities would lose $85 million of the $266 million it received in 2010. or about a 1/3 of it. the c.r. eliminates $103 million for the tech program, vocational education which heavily benefits community colleges. and would also gut funding for the creation and support of statewide education data systems and eliminate all congressional earmarks for individual institutions which in 2010 total almost $2 billion for colleges and universities. under this proposal, title 1 would be cut by $693.5 million. the cut to title 1 of the elementary and secondary education act would mean 2,400 schools that serve nearly one million disadvantaged students

and would lose funding for teachers, tutors, and after-school programs. nearly 10,000 teacher aides could lose their jobs. head start was targeted for one of the biggest reductions, a $1 billion cut below fiscal 2010. the massive cuts of the head start program would remove 218 ,000 low-income children and families and close more than 16,000 head starts and early head start classrooms across the country. it would leave 55,000 teachers and teacher assistants and related staff without jobs. the pell grant scholarship, maximum award, would be reduced by $845, from $5,550 to $4,750. many of the 9.4 million students who are projected to receive a pell grant in 2011-2012 school year would see a lower grantwa